AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY (CONTROL).

HC Deb 03 March 1920 vol 126 cc550-92

Mr. CAUTLEY

I beg to move, That, except in the case of hops, all Regulations affecting the control of agricultural produce, fertilisers, and feeding-stuffs should forthwith be abolished. For almost five years British farmers have been the victims of control. Every article they have to produce has been the subject of it—horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, hay and straw—all have their markets and prices arranged for them. I am, I think, within the mark in saying that over 250 orders have been passed regulating this much-harassed industry. The British farmer has not been able to deal with his own corn and stock, or even to litter his own animals with his own straw. So numerous and so varied have these orders been that he has not known from day to day whether he might not, in the ordinary avocations or duties of his business, be infringing some new order. So harassed, so irksome have these Regulations become that now, nearly eighteen months after the War has ceased, ho says that it is time that these Orders came to an end. I am going to ask the House to agree with him and to pass the Resolution which stands in my name. I may say at once that the Resolution has received the unanimous support of the Chamber of Agriculture and also of the National Farmers' Union, which is the one body which can speak for the farmers of this country.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY

You refer to the English Chamber?

Mr. CAUTLEY

Yes. I am speaking on behalf of England. I have not that intimate knowledge of Scotland that other hon. Members have. From the experience we have had of the drafting and execution of these Orders, and of statements made in Parliament, the farmer has learnt not to place too much reliance on the promises or assurances of Government spokesmen. As for their business efficiency in the conduct of this control the farmer would be inclined to smile if it had not been so costly to his pocket. It may be well if, before I make good this general statement, I should ask the House to consider the one general question of principle. As matters stand to-day, the matter of wheat, for instance—and I shall come back to it in more detail—we may take it that that which is imported into this country the Government are buying in the cheapest market. Yet they fix the price for wheat which is produced at home at 76s. In no quarter of the world, or by any means at the disposal of the Government, in landing it, are they in fact paying for wheat c.i.f., at any English port less than 134s., and I believe it goes up to 140s. or even more. In time of peace the Government are saying to the British farmer, "we will tax you to the difference between 76s. and 134s. on every quarter of wheat that you grow," as a contribution, I suppose, to the subsidy that they are giving to the people of this country in the price of bread. On behalf of the whole agricultural industry I protest against that. Why the farmer, and the labourer, and the men engaged in the production of wheat in this country should be picked out for this special tax, and why they alone of the community should contribute towards this great subsidy in the way they are obliged to do, I cannot understand. It has the effect of making wheat unprofitable to grow here, where as it ought to be the aim of everybody to grow as much wheat as possible. It forces down the agricultural labourers' wages, and to-day we have the spectacle of the lowest skilled man in the country, the average railway porter, getting £3 a week whilst the average agricultural worker, a skilled man, has an average of only 37s. 6d.

Let me direct the attention of the House to the working of these controls. Take some of the main items. I ask the House to consider the action of the Food Controller, and, indirectly, the action of the Minister of Agriculture, in dealing with the milk supply. I know that the Minister of Agriculture is personally in favour of the proposal I am putting before the House, for he believes the time has come when all control should be abolished. Of course there are other influences at work. I want to say something about the business capacity of the men who are managing the food control. How is it working in the case of milk? Last summer a most elaborate Commission took all the evidence it could, and they fixed certain prices for milk during the winter months from October to April. Quite recently a further investigation has been made, which, with the actual facts before them, confirmed in every particular the detailed cost arrived at by the first Commission. What did the Food Controller do? He issued broadcast public invitations to all the farmers to make all the milk they could during the winter months. I think in this matter the Food Controller went beyond his province, which was to fix prices on an economic basis, but with a view of securing the milk supply he fixed the price for butter at an absolutely uneconomic price, and then fixed the price for cattle, and made it profitable to keep milking cows during the winter, and slaughter them for beef during the summer months, with the result that the market was flooded with milk, although the prices fixed by him were only the economic prices to enable the farmers to produce the milk which created such a glut, and the milk could not be disposed of. They then decontrolled milk and left the farmers to struggle as best they could to get out of the impasse they had created. If you decontrol an article which the farmer produces, and leave him to bear the loss, you should at the same time decontrol those on which he may make a profit.

Let me now turn to the next item; that is, cattle, sheep and pigs. I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question to-day as to what were the numbers of sheep and pigs in this country now on the last returns he had compared with pre-War times, and they show something like a diminution of 2,000,000 sheep in the country and 350,000 pigs; and the right, hon. Gentleman candidly admitted, indeed, he could not do otherwise, that this diminution in our flocks of sheep and herds of pigs was entirely due to con- trolled markets and prices being forced upon this industry by the Food Controller. Is that going to tend towards an adequate supply of home-produced food, or is it going to tend to lessen the quantity of food which is going to be produced at home? I am glad that there has been an announcement that, so far as pigs are concerned, they are going to be decontrolled at the end of this month, and I shall say no more about that except to foretell that the number of pigs will steadily increase, and we shall get back quickly to the numbers we had before the War.

Let me inform hon. Members who may not be aware of the details how we are hampered by this system of infernal control. I ask any commercial man how his industry could progress under such circumstances. How have we got to sell our sheep? Two men are appointed to estimate the weight of the sheep in the carcase, although it is still alive, and although the farmer takes all the trouble to produce a sheep fit for the butcher. He has to sell it at the guesswork of two people about whom he knows nothing, and he has to send it to some market, and these men direct where it has to go, and the farmer has to sell it at the guesswork of other people over whom he has no power of appointment and no control of any sort or kind. What would a Manchester manufacturer say if he had to sell his cotton goods at the estimated value of somebody else? He would soon become bankrupt.

How have we to sell our stock of cattle? You send your animal into the market and it has to go before two people called "graders" who have to say whether it is first, second or third quality, and according to quality they fall in price 5s. per cwt. live weight, and these graders can further vary the price by 1s. or 2s. per cwt. It is then passed over the weighing scales. Is there any wonder at the dissatisfaction throughout the country, although the graders are doing the best they can? I make no charge against them except that some of them are incompetent. It is at the best all guesswork. In my own market town, Haywards Heath, in Sussex, we have had this sort of thing happening. A man sent a fat bullock to be sold, and instead of it being graded in the first class, it was put into the second class. The owner said, "I will not sell at that price," but the Food Controller warned him that unless he sent it in to the next market he would be subject to a penalty of £100, or six months' imprisonment. He sent it back to the market, and the Food Minister sent down a super-grader, who stated, "I cannot alter it; but it is quite true you have not been treated properly." This man had consequently to sell at a loss of at least £5. Here is another case. A farmer who is a good judge of cattle, sent in a beast, and two of his friends, who are large dealers, declared that it ought to be put into the first class, first quality. But in the market it was graded as second quality, which meant a loss of 7s. per cwt. on a 12 cwt. animal, or, altogether, four guineas. I appeal to any commercial man, is it possible that trade can go on under such circumstances? Yet this is the sort of thing the right hon. Gentleman is going to ask the farmers to continue to submit to at a time when the War is over. I ask hon. Members as business men, treating this matter purely as a matter of business, whether the time has not yet come when we should have a free market like anybody else engaged in trade?

I am coming now to what is perhaps really even more serious, and that is the question of wheat. Anybody who has really studied the interests of agriculture will confirm me when I say that wheat growing is really the foundation of all agriculture. It is the staple cereal, the staple product, and the centre around which agriculture turns. I make no complaint of what was done during the War. Everybody then had to submit to exceptional circumstances. But I ask this House to bear with me a few minutes while I describe what has happened so far as wheat prices are concerned in the last few years. In the spring of 1918, the Food Controller fixed the price at 75s. 6d. and it rose at the end of the season to 76s. 6d. per quarter. These were to be the minimum prices. I understand my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) to say they were to be the mean prices. But the right hon. Gentleman took no steps to secure that the farmer should get these prices. On the other hand, the Food Controller, or the Wheat Commission, issued such an enormous amount of foreign wheat that the farmer could not even get that price. That shows the House the nature of the ties put on this particular industry. Now mark what happened. Early in 1919, as soon as Parliament met, we took steps—I amongst others—to ascertain what was going to be done about the wheat grown in 1919. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take note of this, because I say that the farmer was absolutely let down not only by the Food Controller but by the Board of Agriculture. We got a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, and from the Board, that the price for 1919 would be the same as that of the previous year as a minimum, and I have in my hand telegrams which passed between the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland which make that perfectly plain, because the final telegram says, "The maximum prices of last year shall be the minimum for 1919." Lord Ernie, who was then President of the Board, went to Maid-stone in the spring of the year and made the same statement. He told the farmers they would have the play of the market for their 1919 wheat, and the right hon. Gentleman below me (Sir A. Boscawen) in the second Debate that took place in the House said; I pointed out that as regards this year's crop we were disregarding the Corn Production Act altogether, and had fixed as the minimum prices the maximum which prevailed last November. Instead of acting up to these pledges, however, they played what I was going to call a really low-down trick; at any rate, the Food Controller—it was not the Board of Agriculture—issued an Order to the millers of the country that they were in no case to pay more than 76s. 6d. to the English farmer, and if they did, they would not get the necessary amount of foreign wheat to make good their supply. Having made that promise to the farmers, having said that the maximum price of the last year should be the minimum price for 1919, they then fixed those prices, not only as the minimum, but as the maximum, also, for 1919. That is the reason why the farmer does not rely very much on the promises and assurances of Government officials. But the story I have to tell does not end there. I have pointed out how, as early as 1918, a reasonable price for wheat was fixed at 75s. 6d. and 76s. 6d., and was continued for the next year, 1919. But from 1918 right away, the cost of production has steadily increased in every single item that can be named. Wages have gone up, I will not say by leaps and bounds, but by a very large amount, and everything the farmer has to buy in connection with the production of wheat has also increased in price. To put it, so far as wheat is concerned, on wages alone, in October last there was an increase in the farm worker's wage of 6s 6d. per week, while the working hours were reduced to 50 and 48 from 60 and 54. In spite of this increase—and I am only dealing with one increase, there are others—in spite of this increase of 6s. 6d. a week in the wages, the prices have remained at 76s. 6d., and we are told we are still to be controlled at that price.

The House may have observed that, and those who read about agricultural matters no doubt have done so, the present President of the Board made a pronouncement a day or two ago. Why he made it I am at a loss to understand, unless it was that he wished to emphasise the difficulties under which agriculturists are suffering. He promised them no relief. On the contrary, although there has been this largo increase in cost and although there is at present pending an application for a still further increase of wages of some shillings a week, we are told by the President that the present price of English wheat is still to be 77s. 6d. for this year, whereas in the very pronouncement made by the present President of the Board of Agriculture he states that what cost 76s. last year is now at least 95s. Again, I appeal to any commercial man whether it is possible for the farmer to go on growing wheat in this country under conditions and under control such as this.

Will the House look at it in one or two other ways? The present price of wheat is about £17 a ton. I grow wheat. I am not allowed to use it to feed my own pigs or poultry, but I am obliged to buy other feeding stuffs at £25 a ton. Is that business? The Food Controller and the President have done rightly in my opinion in taking all control off barley and oats. The result of the action of the Food Controller and the Board of Agriculture combined has been what was naturally to be expected after what I have said. It would be expected that the cultivation of wheat had seriously decreased. It has decreased, after all the efforts which were made during the war, by no less than 400,000 acres up to June last—over 1,600,000 quarters of wheat. What does the House think it has been since? What is the pre- sent position of the ordinary farmer who can grow wheat or oats or barley? I saw it stated by a man at Ipswich that an acre of wheat produces £13, an acre of oats produces from £18 to £20, and an acre of barley produces from £25 to £30. With figures such as that, which is going to be produced? Wherever land is suitable, wheat is not being grown and barley and oats are We want wheat in this country. We want to stop the terrible rise of exchange against us, to grow as much as we can here, instead of buying from America and the Argentine at 130s. a quarter, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing, and selling to the miller at 67s. or 70s. He is selling at this huge loss to the taxpayer rather than paying a little more to the Englishman and having the wheat grown hero. Why docs he? I shall be glad to hear the answer. We ask to have this matter controlled and put on a purely business footing. What is happening to the wheat lands which we ought to be cropping? I have a paragraph from a letter written by the President of the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants to the Farmer and Stockbreeder, on 16th February: Enquiries and orders for grass seeds for laying down permanent pasture at present in the hands of big seedsmen in this country are unprecedented. Seeds for laying down land to grass to-day are about £5 an acre instead of £2 or £2 10s. That means that the heavy lands which are not suitable for barley and oats and ought to be growing wheat and which, by great efforts, have been growing wheat during the War, are being laid down to grass because of the action of the hon. Gentleman below me, I want to alter that. I want the House to say the time has come when it should be altered.

I want to free from control all feeding stuffs and fertilisers that the farmer has to buy. I have said little of the costly army of officials which all this control is involving. I did not tell you that on every bullock sold in this country there is a cost of £6 being taken by the Government out of the consumer, out of every sheep £2, and out of every pig almost as much. I want to stop all that. Farmers have had some advantage out of the control of fertilisers in that by the restriction of exports a certain amount of sulphate of ammonia—200,000 tons—and a certain amount of nitrate, has been preserved to him. We are prepared to pay the increased price on that for the sake of freedom, for the sake of having our own initiative and growing what crops we please, and we sot against that any increase in the price of wheat that there may be. I should like to have dealt with fertilisers and feeding stuffs and with hops, but I have laid more than the foundation of something with which the right hon. Gentleman below me will find some difficulty in dealing in the demand that I make for freedom for this much-harassed industry, so that we may set to work on it. The free play of the market is what we want, and to get rid of this costly system which has been set up to hamper us in every direction. I am certain that if we could get that, instead of increasing prices the tendency will be to diminish them.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER CLAY

I beg to second the Motion. I was so moved by the eloquence of my hon. Friend that I began to wonder whether the hon. Gentlemen who represent the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Food are sane persons or not. But when one thinks the matter over, one realises that they have been up against a very tough proposition. It was easy enough for this House, as it did in 1914–15, to pass measures of control through all their stages at a single sitting, but the result has been that the octopus of bureaucracy, which spreads its tentacles over the nation, cannot be got rid of in a moment. There are influences which act and react and make the withdrawal of control in many cases a matter of difficulty and, in some cases, almost impossible at the present time. Take one question, which is not for the moment a matter of control, the indiscriminate slaughter of calves which is going on throughout the country to-day. At least, it is going on in my part of the country, and the effect will be that in three years' time there will be a shortage of home-grown beef, and, what is more important, because you cannot import it, there will be a shortage of milk. I mention that as one of the difficulties which have to be faced. There are difficulties whore there are real shortages, such as in the case of potatoes. I am not going into the unhappy history of the control of last season's potato crop, but I realise that there may be a shortage at this moment, and there, again, the Food Ministry is responsible in dealing with the matter. So far as possible, whether we represent rural constituencies or urban divisions, we ought to look at this matter from the national point of view and not try to make the prosperity of agriculture the cause of strife and jealousy and accusations of profiteering between the urban and the rural districts.

I shall confine my remarks chiefly to the question of hops. It may be said, especially by those who do not know the subject, that farmers wish to get rid of control in the agricultural industry where control is irksome to them, but wish to keep the control when it suits their purpose. I hope to be able to show that in the case of hops there is a ease for the control being continued for at least another five years. Hops were controlled from 1917, and the reason they were controlled was, I believe, that there was an uneven distribution of hops amongst the growers in the country and a shortage of hops naturally coming from abroad. Therefore, the Government wished to see that the supplies went round as far as possible. In 1918 the submarine danger became very acute and there was almost a panic with regard to food supplies, and an Order was made that 50 per cent. of the pre-war acreage should be grubbed up and put under potatoes or wheat. This was cheerfully agreed to by the growers in spite of the great loss of capital which it involved. It involved loss of capital which to reinstate today would mean £200 an acre. It also meant that the cast houses and the huts used for housing the pickers are not being used owing to the decreased acreage, and unless the acreage is increased they will soon be falling absolutely into disrepair. No compensation whatever was paid for' the grubbing up of the hops. We know that there certain compensation was given for ploughing up grass land. The value of the best grazing land in Northamptonshire and other grazing counties in England is as nothing compared to the damage done by the grubbing up of land which has been used for hops. It costs £200 an acre to put it back under hops, and not one penny piece has been paid by the State as compensation for that land.

9.0 P.M.

In reply to a question the other day it was stated that the Defence of the Realm Losses Commission could not meet any claim which was made for the grubbing up of hops. That is the position as it stood in 1918, and as it stands to-day. The land was grubbed up without a penny of compensation, the acreage under hops has gone down from somewhere over 32,000 to 16,000, and the position is very serious. In 1914, we imported into this country one-third of the hops we required and grew two-thirds. To-day we grow one-third and import two-thirds. Licences for the importation of no less than 590,000 cwts. of hops have been granted, and that means that at £15 a cwt. that considerably over £8,000,000 has gone out of this country at a time when the exchanges make it desirable that as far as possible we should grow as much as we can in this country. One hon. Member has an Amendment dealing with the question of hops. There is at this moment a world shortage of hops. At the present time prices of hops run in the neighbourhood of £26 to £28, or considerably more than the controlled price. It may be said that buyers are very foolish to ask for control because without it they would get the benefit of the higher prices owing to the world shortage. That shows that the growers are far-seeing, and realise that it is not wise in agriculture, any more than in industry, to limit output. There-may be some who would say that it would be better to grow a smaller crop than get a larger price. Others, looking at it from the national point of view, and with a vision of what will happen in future, say they would rather have a controlled price and have a larger acreage under hops. Though the price of hops may be high they state that there have been large contracts going to America, California especially, for hops in 1921 and 1922, and I am informed even up to the 1926 growth, at prices considerably less than the market price to-day.

That is a danger which influences the growers in their hesitation, without some definite guarantee from the Government, to replant their hop acreage at an enormous cost of £200 an acre. They want some assurance that they will get a return on their outlay. We are for control for the following reasons. We wish to see the industry re-established with at least the acreage which it had pre-War. We wish for control because it guarantees a fair profit on the output, and I would put it to the Labour party that this control has been in effect a limitation, almost a voluntary limitation, on profits on the part of the grower. Not the least remarkable thing in the hop industry is that for the first time in the course of my life, certainly in the course of my political life, I have found everybody in connection with the hop industry in agreement. Very few Members of this House, probably, are intimate with the hop industry, but when you get hop growers and brewers agreed in all particulars it is a case of the lion and the lamb lying down together, though which is the lion and which the lamb I am not going to say. Brewers, factors, merchants, growers are in agreement, and a large number of branches of the agricultural workers have passed resolutions in favour of control.

It will also save a large amount of shipping, help our exchange, and increase employment, if we re plant our pre War acreage, because no branch of agriculture employs so many men per acre as the hop industry. Even more important, it employs the men on the land all through the year. It employs their wives and children during the picking time, and gives a fine holiday to the women and children of largo portions of the east-end of London and different cities in the Worcestershire area in the autumn, adding at the same time substantially to their means of living. Lastly, what is more important perhaps at present than anything else, it does not cost a penny to the nation. It is very seldom that anybody asks in this House for something that does not cost anything. Here is a demand put forward in a united manner for something which this House can grant which will not cost the country a single penny—because it has not cost the country a penny from its inception in 1918 to the present day.

But it is an urgent matter. This is the last month in which the cuttings may be taken to plant what are called sets for planting next autumn. I am informed that to-day there is no demand for these cuttings because growers do not know where they stand. It is urgent that a pronouncement should be made at once. The other day the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) said that the Government realised the importance of this matter and were going to take adequate steps. I would urge him strongly to make some definite pronouncement to-night because after the end of this month it will be too late to plant for the present year. While there are other matters which may seem more important to many Members of the House, yet this House has always done its best to safeguard the interests of the minority, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do all he can to reassure the growers that their interests will be safeguarded and that they will have some recompense for the manner in which they grubbed up their gardens and the loss to which they have been put since 1918.

Mr. ROYCE

I should like to support in its entirety this Resolution, but I cannot do so first because one particular agricultural product is excepted and also because I do think that there are circumstances that require a certain amount of control when prices soar beyond what may be regarded as a reasonable amount. To that extent I am not in favour of the Resolution, but with the idea of the general principle of the Resolution, the removal of control from agriculture, I am in sympathy. The method in which that control has been exercised is far worse than the control itself. It is the worst feature. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grin-stead (Mr. Cautley) pointed a very threatening finger at the Food Controller. The Food Controller deserves something worse than a threat. The whole of his administration, as regards my own particular county is concerned, is as bad as it can possibly be, and there has been an actual breach of faith on the part of his Department. It is one thing when the country is emerging from a very grave danger, but it was another thing when it was in the depth of danger, when danger threatened it. I am thinking of the time when an appeal was made in 1918 to the farmers of my constituency to grow potatoes. I was then a member of the War Executive Committee and we were asked to assist the Government in this connection. We not only induced people to grow potatoes, but we forced a good many to grow them. We forced men to plough up their pasture, though they had no desire to grow potatoes, and regarded that class of agriculture as entirely foreign to them. A guarantee was given to the growers, and I should like to read some of the terms of that guarantee, but, before doing so, I wish to say one or two words with regard to the matters brought before the House by the hon. Member for East Grinstead, more especially with relation to corn-growing.

Although corn is not one of the principal products of my part of the country, still, in common with other agricultural districts of England, we feel that we have been very badly treated. When a guaranteed minimum is made the maximum and when a Department, who ought to observe honourable obligations, go behind the backs of the people with whom they had made the arrangements and tell the millers that anything they pay over and above the minimum price will be charged against them, it is going beyond ordinary fairness, and, when a farmer finds that he gets £2 per ton for his corn and then has to go back and buy offals at £3 per ton from the miller to whom he has sold his corn, it seems somewhat ridiculous, does it not? Of course, farmers will not grow corn, and this year you have a decrease when you want the corn so badly. Let it never be forgotten that the guarantees in the matter of the growing of cereals have not cost the Government one fraction. On the contrary, the farmers of England—the agriculturists of England, because it reacts upon the labourers—the labourers and the farmers of England subsidised the food of the nation to the extent of £40,000,000 last year and Heaven only knows how much this year That is the position of affairs, so far as the cereal products of England is concerned. You have not used the farmers well; you have used them badly.

We have other grievances. Wherever the hand of control has been placed, it has been exercised to the serious detriment of those engaged in the industry. Take the question of straw. Control was placed upon straw, and it now found that it can be released. The farmer who has had his straw controlled for one year, two years, or three years, now finds that it can be released on condition that he pays the interest on the amount that the Government Department have advanced. He has to pay that interest, though he has been debarred from the interest which would have accrued to him upon the price he would have received for his straw if he had been permitted to sell it. You see, therefore, how badly the farmers have been used in this connection. When I come to the question of potatoes, things are very much worse. The Food Controller, in 1918, made a special appeal. Lord Rhondda, speaking as Food Controller, at the meeting of farmers at the Caxton Hall on February 1st, 1918, said: If varieties that would not keep deteriorated to an abnormal extent the Department would bear the loss and the farmer would not. Again, Major Belcher, speaking as Director of Vegetable Supplies, with the explicit sanction of the Chief Permanent Officials, at Doncaster, on March 2nd, 1918, said: If, in spite of all reasonable precautions, the potatoes were visited by disease which might have been remedied by immediate delivery, or if they were destroyed by flood, the farmer would then receive payment for them, although they had not actually gone into human consumption. This may be a subject for hilarity on the part of the Food Controller and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, but it is a very serious matter for the farmers. I am not concerned so much with the big farmer. He can defend himself, and he will not submit to the measures that have been awarded him, but will appeal to the Courts. It is the small man in whom I am particularly interested. In some instances, the man whose cause I am taking up has had to leave his crops on the land and go and fight for his country. He has not had an opportunity of looking after them. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench on their behalf, and I do beg them to pay special attention, because I have a real case. I would not be here if I had not. After we had induced and forced the farmers and smallholders to grow potatoes, the Potatoes Growers' Prices Commission went round and assessed the prices that were to be paid. They made a Report, and we had a Debate in this House and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food was good enough and kind enough—I believe he meant it at the time—to promise to recommend to his Chief that a Commission should be appointed to investigate affairs and to assess any amount that might be due to the growers of these potatoes. The Commission was duly appointed, and on March 18th, 1919, the hon. Gentleman, according to the Report of the Central Advisory Agricultural Council, made this statement: Then the suggestion arose that quite apart from normal wastage and loss intended to be covered by those prices— Those were the prices fixed by the Growers' Commission— there are certain items of abnormal wastage never contemplated which have arisen, in consequence of which growers Buffer in different parts of the country. Let me refer to two causes. There is, firstly, the wet weather, labour difficulties, and the blight being in excess of anything contemplated at the time that these prices were fixed. These are cases in which there ought to be some claim on those grounds. Secondly, it is said that it was contemplated under that arrangement that the Government should take delivery within a reasonable time. The potatoes on November 1st, 1918, were the property of the State, and the farmer, no matter what opportunity he might have had to dispose of them, was debarred from doing so. He had no right even to remove them. They were the property of the Government. Consequently if he had had a market and had seen his potatoes going bad he could not remove them.

Continuing his statement the hon. Gentleman said: There are cases in which there ought to be some claim on these grounds, and, secondly, it is said it was contemplated under that arrangement that the Government should take delivery within a reasonable time, and, of course, as regards the early growing and badly keeping varieties, that would be taken into consideration when the date of delivery was fixed. There may be losses arising from the inability of the Government to take early delivery. Let, me say at once that, so far as any claims can be put forward by potato growers in any part of the country upon the basis that they have suffered losses either from the delay of the Government in taking delivery unreasonably, having regard to the nature of the potatoes or from abnormal causes, exceptional causes, which were not in contemplation by the Commissioners when the prices were fixed, we are ready and always have been ready to meet these claims, not merely in a spirit of justice, but, if I may say so, in a spirit of generosity. Let us see how they applied this spirit of generosity. They appointed a Commission to enquire locally, and that Commission was composed of two of the representatives of the farmers, two representatives of the Food Controller, and an independent chairman, and their duties were to investigate on the spot. One would have thought that such a Commission would have been a fair Commission, and would have assessed and given final judgment. They were not. They had to report to another Committee; they sent in their Reports to this other Committee, which sits in London. That London Committee was composed as follows: four representatives of the Government; one representative of the Consumers' Council; two farmers, and an impartial chairman. I do not think any hon. Members who were concerned in the matter would regard that Tribunal as being quite the correct thing, so far as the interests of the growers were concerned, for there were only two farmers and five others of diverse interests opposed to them. It was hardly likely the growers would get much in the nature of a judgment. It would have been reasonable, if it was necessary, to have a Reference Commission here in London, that the Commission should be constituted in the same manner as that which took evidence in the country, where they had an opportunity of seeing the farmer, and investigating the whole of the evidence. As I have said, the report was referred to this Central Claims Committee, and as far as adjudication was concerned, the result has been something in the nature of a disaster. Let me give particulars of a few cases reported to me. A widow made a claim for £1,750, which was recommended by the local Committee, She got nothing. In another case the local Committee recommended £8,685, and the Central Committee agreed to pay £125. In a third case the local Committee unanimously recommended £500, and the Central Committee turned the claim down. In a fourth case the local Committee unanimously recommended £9,115, and the Central Committee allowed £3,000.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)

The hon. Member has misconceived somewhat the Motion on which he is speaking. We are discussing the question whether or not control should be maintained or removed in the future, and it would be wrong to go over the past, except as a slight illustration of an argument.

Mr. ROYCE

I will not transgress again, but I thought I was proving how very bad control was, and I was endeavouring to get that control either removed or so amended that it would be a workable control. I have no objection to steps that would prevent prices soaring and prevent undue profiteering. But to use the vehicle that the Department or the Ministry has in its hands as a means of oppression indiscriminately over men who do not deserve to be oppressed, who have responded as far as they can to the demands of their country, is something that I think ought not only to be brought to the notice of the House, but ought to be brought as prominently as possible to the notice of the head of the Department. Justice should be done impartially, no matter what it costs the State, if the people concerned have carried out their contracts. I want absolute freedom for the farmer in the matter of purchases and sales, until his produce reaches such a limit as will impose an undue burden on the country. At the present time it is just the contrary. The farmer has subsidised the food of the country and the labourer has suffered in consequence.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF FOOD (Mr. McCurdy)

My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture will later on reply to the speeches which concern him, and I do not propose to go into matters which will be dealt with by him. I wish merely to deal specifically with the question of potatoes as raised by the hon. Member opposite.

Captain Sir B. STANIER

not that out of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

I understand that the Minister is going to deal with the control of potatoes in the future. That surely is part of agricultural industry, is it not?

Sir B. STANIER

With all due respect to you. Sir, the hon. Gentleman said he was going to reply to the hon. Member who put the question with regard to the control of potatoes in the past.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

From the information which reached me, I understood that he was going to deal directly with the question that the control of agricultural produce be forthwith abolished.

Mr. McCURDY

I had no intention of entering at all into the controversy with regard to the past operations of the Ministry of Food, except to say that some charge, amounting almost to a want of faith on the part of the Ministry, was made. I want to say, in one sentence, that I did lay down principles on which potato growers should be entitled to compensation, in March of last year. Commissions were appointed to investigate the claims of all growers, in accordance with those principles—with which I understand the hon. Member does not quarrel—and to-night in this House is the first occasion on which it has been brought to my notice that there has been any dissatisfaction on the part of any potato grower with the decisions arrived at by those Commissions. I shall be very glad to inquire into the particulars of any case which the hon. Member may bring before me. This is the first intimation I have had, although so many months have elapsed since the Commissions were set up, and it leads me to hope that on the whole they performed their work satisfactorily.

But I desire to call the attention of the House to the effect which the policy recommended in this Motion would have upon the potato position of this country which, I regret to say at the present time, is somewhat serious. I think a statement which will not occupy more than a minute or two of your time will not only perhaps be of interest to the House with regard to the actual position of the potato question at the present time, but will afford subject matter to illustrate some of the principles which will be advanced on one side of the House or the other in this Debate. Prior to the War the average cost of first-crop potatoes in this country was 70s. to 75s. per ton; second crop 55s. to 60s. per ton, and the average crop from 1908 to 1917 was 3,700,000 tons, a yield of 6.3 tens per acre. In 1917, we found it necessary to impose control. The price of potatoes had then soared to something like £14 a ton, and in 1918 that control was extended so as to cover the purchase of the entire potato crop, a transaction to which the hon. Member who spoke last has referred. During 1918, as a result of measures which secured what I think was regarded as a reasonable price to the farmer, production was increased to 5,360,000, an average yield of 6.6 tons per acre, and the price received varied according to the period of the year from £6 to £10 per ton. At the commencement of 1919 we decontrolled, and the farmer was left free to the economic play of the market. The result, I am sorry to say, has been that the crop has declined from 5,360,000 tons to what, on the best materials before me, derived from investigations from the growers themselves, appears to be a total yield for 1919 of 2,900,000 tons, or 4.7 tons per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel MURROUGH WILSON

Was not that due to a very large extent to the very dry summer?

Mr McCURDY

Certainly. The yield per acre unquestionably is partly due to that and partly due to the fact that, where the farmer has secured what he regards as a satisfactory and substantial price, it pays him to manure a little more freely, in order to increase the yield per acre. These factors were absent, and the present crop is unfortunately considerably below the average for ten years before the War The price to-day for potatoes, which, under control, never reached higher than £10 per ton, is £14 and £15 per ton. I can assure the House that, whatever may have been the mistakes of the Ministry of Food in the novel and extremely complicated task with which it was called upon to deal, it has been a settled principle that it was to the interest of the consumer and to the interest of the public that in exercising control and fixing prices we should always endeavour to fix prices at a level not lower than was sufficient to encourage home production and to ensure to the farmer an adequate return. Mistakes there may have been, but errors can be rectified, and I ask the House to believe that, at any rate, that is the principle on which we have acted. I venture to suggest that that is the case with potatoes, in regard to which in a few days we shall re-impose control. For the convenience of the trade I will state at once the terms which will be imposed, A maximum growers' price for ware potatoes of £12 15s. a ton, free on rail, from the 15th of March, rising by fortnightly increments of 5s. to £14 a ton for potatoes delivered in June. I think the history of potatoes in this country during the last few years shows that what is really in the interests of the country and of the agriculturists is not the highest price that can be obtained at one moment—profiteering one year, followed by bankruptcy the next—but a steady and maintained level of prices, which give confidence and security to what, after all, is one of the most important, if not the most important, industry in this country.

Captain FITZROY

I feel inclined to condole with the hon. Gentleman who sits below me, who, as a result of the Motion he has moved to-night, has received from the Government the answer that it is going to put on control which at present does not exist. So far as I can understand from the remarks which fell from; the hon. Gentleman on the front Bench, the only reason why he is forced to put fresh control on potatoes at the present moment is owing to the disastrous failure of the control which he put on last year, which discouraged the growers. The opportunities which arise in this House for Debates on this question are extremely rare, and I think it is most unfortunate, and that it can be proved to be unfortunate by the course which this discussion has taken to-night, because it has ranged over a vast number of different things. There are many subjects with which agriculture deals, and we wish that the Government could see their way to give more prominence to agriculture as one of the greatest questions of the day, and to give us more opportunities to discuss this question in the House of Commons. The Motion to-night affords us an opportunity of discussing the recent announcement which the Government have made with regard to the control of wheat. I think the history of control is a melancholy one. I give the Cabinet the credit of being composed of intelligent men, but how any body of intelligent men could have produced such a policy with regard to the production of wheat it is very difficult to understand. After all the proposals they have made from time to time as to the control of price and of methods of growing, the result has been that instead of encouraging the growth and production of wheat in this country, they have done everything possible to discourage it in every way.

I want, if I possibly can, to confine my remarks to the announcement of the Government, made in last Friday's newspapers, and it is my intention to condemn that announcement in the most severe manner I possibly can. The curious thing is that it is quite unnecessary, or should be unnecessary, for me to have to condemn that policy, because in making the announcement there was a statement by the Minister of Agriculture, who condemned it in unmeasured terms. Thus you have an announcement made by the Cabinet in which the representative of the particular industry concerned has a seat, and in making that announcement to the public he condemns it from start to finish. I cannot imagine why that announcement was made as a separate branch of the policy of the Government. We have been promised in the King's Speech a policy for agriculture by the Government and to be announced at the earliest possible moment. Instead of bringing in the policy as a whole to deal with agricultural questions in this House as a whole, they produce this announcement instead of bringing it in as part of the general policy which they must at the earliest possible opportunity produce to this House What is the history of the control of wheat during the last year? I will deal with it, not from any spirit of dislike on behalf of the agricultural community, but purely and simply from the position of the need for an increased production of wheat in this country, and from no other point of view. Obviously the people engaged in any industry always dislike control. I am quite sure when the question of control really comes up for discussion I, at any rate, will be quite sure to agree with the hon. Member who spoke just now on this question. The control of wheat began in the Corn Production Act. That Act was introduced in the middle of the War when this country was in an extremely critical condition from the shortage of foodstuffs caused by the submarine danger, which was then at its height. It was introduced to meet a specific danger. In time of war that Act worked pretty well. The farmers of this country, I think, did their duty manfully, and did all they could to produce as much corn as possible, and did increase very largely the amount of corn produced.

When peace was declared, and the cost of production went on rising, the Corn Production Act failed because it was based on an entirely wrong principle. It was based on the principle as regards the cost of production on a rising scale, and as regards the price obtained on a falling scale. It is quite obvious that any Act of Parliament based on that principle with a view to increasing production must very largely fail. It also forgot this essential detail, that in dealing with the question of production of a particular cereal you cannot force any man to produce a particular thing when it pays him better to produce something else. You cannot force a man to produce wheat when it pays him better to produce barley. I say for myself that at the present moment I cannot afford to grow wheat. With the cost of production of the wheat crop and the return you are allowed to get for it from the Government, it does not pay to grow that particular kind of cereal. An hon. Friend pointed out that the basis of all these things is founded on the production of wheat. It is always forgotten, though I think it can be proved by statistics, that all other cereals rise correspondingly with the rise in the price of wheat. You will find, if you look up the prices of cereals for many years past, that when wheat is high, barley and oats and the rest all rise together. Therefore, it is obvious, if you are trying to farm one particular kind of cereals, that unless you give them free play with the other kind of cereals every farmer will produce the particular kind that pays him best. I know the Government think that any decontrol of the price of wheat would seriously affect the consumer, but that is a very short-sighted view to take of this question. We have got, as you know, a bread subsidy, and a very serious burden on the taxpayer it is and it promises to be an even more serious burden if the present policy of the Government is continued, because we must realise that every quarter of wheat which can be produced in this country lessens by that amount the amount of wheat we have got to import from abroad, and as the very large cost of wheat imported from abroad is due to freights and other causes, you would save that on every quarter of wheat grown in this country. To take the longsighted view, it is quite obvious that our business, if we want to consider the interests of the consumer, is to encourage to the utmost of our powers the production of wheat in this country.

As regards wages, it is quite easy to go on increasing the wages of the agricultural labourer, and I should be only too glad for the agricultural labourer to be able to receive a wage equivalent in every respect to the wages paid in other industries. But a rise in the price of wheat is an indication at any rate, if nothing more, of the rise in the price of everything else, and when prices rise the cost of living increases, and it is essential to raise the wages of the agricultural labourer. At the same time, the Govern- ment propose to keep the price of wheat at a figure at which it cannot be grown, and the obvious result is that, although the wages of the agricultural labourer individually may be raised, the ultimate result is that you must create unemployment in the agricultural industry. We had a Bill the other day introduced into this House for unemployment insurance, but agriculture was not included, and so far as I am aware there was no demand on the part of the agricultural labourers to be included, because unemployment in agriculture is not so common as in other industries, but if you proceed with this policy and make it impossible for farmers to grow wheat and to keep their land under arable cultivation for that process, you must inevitably include the agricultural labourer in the unemployment insurance scheme. It is a very common practice of Governments, especially of Governments in Great Britain, to hide their heads in the sand and not to deal with facts as they are at the moment. They are much too apt to wait until a crisis arises before they take any steps to avert it. That was the case very often in the War, and I thought they would have learned a lesson from that; but with them as with other people the War is soon forgotten.

I am certain that unless they take adequate steps in the very near future to increase the production of wheat in this country, a very dangerous state of affairs with regard to the supplies of wheat here will arise. It is obvious to anybody who seriously studios this question that the world's supplies of wheat are not increasing. Those countries which grow wheat are consuming a great deal more of what they grow themselves and have less to export to this country, and it is obvious, therefore, that this country as well as other countries must depend in the future much more largely than in the past on what they can produce within their own borders. We had a lesson from the War of the danger of letting our supplies depend upon overseas, and I think in the future that danger will be even greater, and if the Government do not realise their responsibility in this matter, they will be to blame if we find ourselves in a very difficult situation. Therefore, I do implore the Government to take every necessary step to increase the production of wheat. I am bound to say, from their action hitherto in this direction, that it makes it extremely difficult for me and for those who think with me on this question to give them our support on this occasion. We cannot put ourselves in the position of sharing their responsibility in not only letting the agricultural industry down, but—and I do not wish to be offensive—but in what I might call deceiving the consumer as to the real position in regard to wheat.

10.0 P.M.

I implore them at this last moment to tell us, even if they are not going completely to decontrol wheat, that, at any rate, they are going to give us something which will encourage us to grow it. They have got it grown so far under false pretences. We were led to believe last summer that they would give us a guaranteed price for the 1919 harvest, and that we were to have an open market over and above that price, but when it came to the point we found that the Wheat Commission had stepped in and that the guaranteed price had become a maximum price, and that instead of being allowed an open market we were to get that guaranteed price for the wheat that we grow, and no more. We are told by the Minister of Agriculture in the statement which he made the other day that that guaranteed price is equivalent now to 95s. instead of 75s., 20s. a quarter more than the price we were able to get from the 1019 harvest. At this moment the wheat is ill the ground. To that extent the Government are secure in the amount of wheat that they are going to get for the 1920 harvest. It is no good talking about spring wheat. About 15 per cent. of the whole supply of this country is spring wheat, and it is far too late now to put in spring wheat if you are going to get any sort of yield from it. As regards the 1920 harvest, the Government have absolutely got that under false pretences, and have led us into planting as much ground as we have at the present time. I saw the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in the newspapers, that although the maximum price given for 1921 does not apply to the harvest of 1920, yet it must, indirectly, favourably affect the price of the 1920 harvest. I absolutely fail to understand what he means, and I invite the representative of agriculture on the Front Bench to tell us what he does mean. I do again ask—and earnestly ask—that the Government will reconsider their decision, because if they will not, I, at any rate, and I think anyone holding the views I hold on this question, will go into the Division Lobby.

Major HOWARD

Although there has been a ruling of Mr. Deputy-Speaker that we cannot go back too far into the past, we must consider what effect control has had in the past before we can arrive at a decision as to whether it should continue in the future Although I do not want to go back ten years, as did the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Food Ministry, I do want to go back to the time of the War. I think everyone will agree that we responded loyally to the request of the Government when, owing to the submarine danger, they called upon farmers to plough up their land. We were then of opinion that we should grow as much wheat as we possibly could in this country, and I think every Member will agree that we ought to grow as much wheat as we can to-day in this country. What has been the result of the Food Controller's action as regards growing more wheat in this country? We know that for the 1919 crop, it shrunk by 400,000 to 500,000 acres, and I believe when we get the return in June for the 1920 crop, it will be found that the shrinkage is a great deal heavier. That is the result of the food control. They cannot deny that that control has reduced the acreage, and if that is so, as I profoundly believe it is, it ought not to be continued, as it is a danger to the country, and it will be the moans of increasing the price of wheat in the future and the price of the food of the people. They came along and interfered with beef, and since then there has been no fattening of beef. Look at the return of bullocks that went into the markets last year. There were thousands and thousands less than the year before. Take sheep. Sheep are two millions less, as a direct result of the control of the Department of the hon Gentleman who has just spoken. I was, at one time, a trader in the market, and I think any manufacturer who had to sell under such conditions would not continue to manufacture anything. Two traders were appointed, the one a farmer and the other a butcher, to re-present the meat trade and to grade the cattle in the first and second grades. According to their decision the bullocks were sold at a certain price. What happened? If they were graded too high there was an outcry from the butcher and a letter from the Live Stock Commission telling us of the mistake. We had letters from the Live Stock Commissioner who, by-the-by, was a professor of languages— [An HON. MEMBER:" Appointed by the Food Controller!"]—saying that we ought to be more careful in our grading in the future. If we under-graded the animals we never heard of it. The same with sheep. If a mistake was made we got another letter from the Live Stock Minister appointed by the Hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "What languages?"]—I do not know, but he had very good English, much better than mine! It is only fair to say that the butchers' representative was always able to have his weights checked, but the farmer's representative, when under-grading took place, never had the weights checked, and the result was that most of the cattle were undergraded. I would not put up with it, and sold the lot. Other farmers did the same.

A similar story applies to the pigs. We were urged to feed all the pigs we possibly could, to put up all the sties we could, to put pigs everywhere, and then when we got all that done they said; "You must not feed them." That was the way the farmers were encouraged to make pork I Let us come to potatoes. The hon. Gentleman tried to make out that it was the control of potatoes that produced abundance. That may be true. Food control produced an abundance of potatoes in 1918, but it was the breach of faith in 1919 that produced the scarcity and high prices we have at present. Potatoe growers were asked to grow a certain quantity of potatoes. I was astonished when my hon. Friend said he had had no complaints. If he will refresh his memory he will find he had complaints of the way in which the potato growers had been left by his Department. After they had grown the potatoes and after the potatoes had been accepted by his Department they were left on the hands of the growers to suffer what loss there might be.

Perhaps I have made out a case briefly, and I do not want to go into detail, but the Food Controller has failed in everything he has touched in the past, and I do not think this House ought to allow the control to continue a day longer. As farmers we do not ask nor do we suggest, that if prices soar, as the hon. Member for Holland with Boston suggested, that nothing should be done. We do not ask for undue profits. We do ask that our potatoes should be allowed a market so that we can pay our workmen as good wages as is paid in other industries. We can only do that if we are allowed to sell our stuff at the proper price. If our produce is kept down too low it is impossible to pay the wages we wish to pay our men, and so prevent them being unemployed. I am anxious that the agricultural labourer should be paid as good a wage as other skilled men, because he is a skilled man. Without fear of contradiction I say that the men employed on our farms—I can speak of my own farm—are as skilled as on any railway in the country. I have men driving my ploughing and traction engines just as skilled men, and worth as much, as men driving locomotives. My men who work the machines are certainly as good and skilled as any railway worker, and if men in other trades are receiving high wages, and charging high prices to agricultural labourers, the industry of agriculture should be put into such a position that they can afford to pay their men wages somewhere near those paid in other industries, and only in that way can we bring men back to the countryside, and create that bright and glorious England of which we have heard so much.

Mr. HAYDAY

I have listened to the eloquent appeals made on behalf of the agricultural interest, and perhaps it is as well that one who can speak from the point of view of town life, and represents the consuming interest, should intervene in a Debate when the interests of agriculture are appealing for the removal of just that one safeguard that stands between the consumer and the farmer. It is generally thought throughout the country, and I believe it, that the farmers have been amongst the best and most protected persons in the whole country during the past three or four years. What are the reasons advanced for the removal of control? There are two that I can single out. One is an appeal that if you release control it will enable the farmers to pay better wages. The other is that if you will release control they will be able to charge the market price of the commodity which they produce.

First, take the question of the market price, and I hope that the representative of the Government who will reply to this Debate will inform the House whether the statement I am about to make is correct' or not. The hon. and gallant Member who preceded the last speaker spoke of the difference between wheat and barley growing, and he said that it did not pay on the Government prices to grow wheat, and consequently they were now proceeding to grow barley. I would like to know whether it is not a fact that barley was decontrolled some time ago, and since then the price of barley went up alarmingly, and the farmers are now diverting their energies from growing wheat into growing barley, because of the high prices they can charge for barley in consequence of it being decontrolled. If that then is the reason why other commodities produced by the farming community of the country are to be de-controlled, all I can say is, "Lord help the consumer in the towns !" for prices will go up alarmingly, and you will have that followed by continued demands for increases in wages to meet the rising cost of living. The agricultural interest will be one contributing element towards the increase of such an agitation, because they desire to break away from Government control. I would rather urge, as I did the other night in this House, that we want more effective control. The complaints that have been made against the Department of the Food Controller seem to have been that he has not a set policy; that his has been a vacillating policy and not fixed. I hope we will think very seriously before decontrolling the whole of the agricultural produce of this rountry. We have had examples of the mischief; we were promised during the milk agitation that if milk were decontrolled prices Would fall very rapidly. It is true they have fallen, but they have not fallen 50 per cent. of the amount it was promised they would fall if only milk were decontrolled. The fall in prices in this particular instance was a consequence of the mildness of the weather, and the surplus that found its way to the market rather than any desire on the part of the farmer. Let me suggest this further point, that since farmers have been able to charge much higher prices for butter, less of the milk has found its way to the consumer, and more has gone to the manufacture of butter, because there, undoubtedly, it pays them much better. I hope for the sake of the immediate future—hon. Members may smile, but it does not in the least disconcert me, because I have a fixed opinion that the farmers of this country have been amongst the greatest profiteers we have had—I hope, I say, that before any question of decontrol is seriously considered, and in view of the statement made by the Food Controller as to the possible shortage of the potato crop, and the suffering that will be occasioned thereby to workers in the towns, I hope that we shall have a tighter control rather than less control of this nature. All the appeals for decontrol have emanated from those directly interested in the industry. They are asking that they shall be given free play to make their own markets, not to produce more. Their sole desire is to make more profit. They are producing more barley because they are getting a bigger price for it. If they get a free open market to charge more for wheat, they will grow more wheat, and that is the patriotism of the whole fraternity. It is a question of profit all the time. I suggest we should keep control for the protection of the consuming public.

Major WHELER

I think most Members of the House will regret that the last speech was delivered—

Mr. J. JONES

We welcome it.

Major WHELER

The bulk of hon. Members will not do that.

Mr. JONES

Only those who are farmers.

Major WHELER

We do not want a spirit of antagonism created between town and country dwellers, and if people will only examine into the question on a broader basis than did the last speaker, they will realise that, however stiff the control, you cannot make anyone connected with agriculture, be he farmer or labourer, produce an article which it does not pay to produce. In the arguments he adduced at the beginning of his speech he quite forgot that very essential point. Why should a farmer produce anything it does not pay him to produce? He has not answered that question, which I commend to his favourable consideration before he makes another speech on agricultural matters.

This Debate is one of the most vital we could possibly have on a private Member's Motion, because with it is bound up the future of our wheat growing. The whole agricultural community, not only farmers but labourers, landlords, and everyone connected with the land, were most astonished at the statement in the "Times" on Friday. What struck me more than anything else was the statement at the end, in small print, that "this announcement will probably lead to a large increase of spring-grown wheat." I imagine the paragraph was carefully edited beforehand. To allow a statement of that sort to go out to the agricultural community is the best possible way to make them think the Ministry of Agriculture does not know its duties. I was discussing this with some farmers only on Monday, and they were all astonished at the announcement. One farmer said: "I meant to have grown 80 acres of wheat this year. I have only 16. I shall have none next year if this sort of thing goes on." That is the common feeling of the bulk of our big agriculturists when they see statements such as this. There is a very large amount of land which was ploughed up compulsorily which can only under any circumstances grow a moderate crop of wheat, and every acre of it at present prices is grown at a very heavy loss. I am not thinking of the better quality of land, but of the vast amount of land which probably cannot grow more than 33½ quarters per acre. Does the Board of Agriculture want to keep that land under the plough or not? If it does, it has to alter its methods. If not, it will go back under such bad conditions, because grass seed is unprocurable, that it will be valueless for stock breeding. This is a most vital debate with a view to the future, and with it is bound up the question of unemployment. The prospect for the agricultural labourer is very black indeed. I want to see these men employed, but if we are going to get this sort of announcement there will be more unemployment, and any further increase in wages without some compensation to help us, will only increase it and therefore make the position more difficult. Though I am a strong supporter of the Government, I shall have to follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby unless we get a satisfactory assurance.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen)

I have listened with very great interest to the speeches this evening, and they have not been altogether kind to the Government. We appear to be a pretty bad lot. I do not know which is the worst, my hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Food (Mr. McCurdy), or myself, who represents the Ministry of Agriculture. I do not know whether he is regarded as the biggest scoundrel and myself as the biggest fool. I do not know which he prefers to be, and I do not know which I prefer to be. I can assure the House that under the most difficult circumstances arising from the absolute necessity of control during the War, and from the transition period after the War, we have been endeavouring to cope with the situation. Our object is, first of all, to stimulate agriculture by every possible means, and, secondly, to protect the consumer from any undue profiteering. With much that has been said I entirely agree. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the East Grinstead Division (Mr. Cautley) spoke about getting rid of the harassing shackles of control. So far as I am concerned, the sooner we get rid of the harassing shackles of control the better. During the War a certain amount of control was unavoidable, and you cannot remove it all immediately; but I am convinced that we shall never get back to a permanent basis of reasonable prices until we get rid of all these controls and allow the free play of the market once more. The difficulties are great. The public are not always reasonable or logical. This is what happens we have beard instances of it this evening. The public shouts for the decontrol of a particular article; it is decontrolled, the price goes up, and probably will go up temporarily—I believe the temporary rise will lead to further production and will ultimately lead to a permanent fall in price—and then the public, who have been shouting for decontrol, shout for the resumption of control. My hon. Friends who are interested in agriculture are not entirely logical. They ask for decontrol, but there are some things they would very much like to remain controlled. Only yester- day—which is a rather curious commentary on the Motion we were discussing this evening—an influential deputation from tomato growers in Sussex—

Mr. CAUTLEY

They are not agriculturists.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

They claim to be agriculturists, and they would be very annoyed if you said they were not agriculturists.

Mr. CAUTLEY

Market gardeners!

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We regard horticulture and market gardening as part of agriculture, and I should be very sorry to say that they are not part of agriculture. If you say that, you cut out some of the most intensive cultivation in the country, and you cut out practically the whole of our allotment holders. Only yesterday, from the same county that my hon. and learned Friend represents, a deputation representing tomato growers and the growers of other vegetable produce waited upon my Noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, and myself, and demanded, in language quite as firm and determined as that used by my hon. and learned Friend to-night, that we should institute a most elaborate control of the tomato trade.

Sir B. STANIER

Tomatoes are not a necessity.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

They regard them equally as much a necessity as wheat. I am only pointing out the inconsistency of some of our agricultural Friends. They now demand decontrol of everything except hops. I know that they use very good reasons why the control of hops should remain. At the same time I do not see how you can object to control on principle if you ask specifically to retain control of a particular product of the soil.

Mr. CAUTLEY

Will you pay compensation for the land that was grubbed up?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We are aware of the difficulty of the hop grower. We know that he was compelled to grub up a large part of his acreage, and thereby destroy a number of valuable plants. We know that a great deal of plant in the way of kilos and wire work was put out of action, and we realise that he has got to be given time during which he can replant his gardens. We realise also that the cost of replanting has gone up. Therefore, if there is to be decontrol generally, as we hope in the main, some adequate steps will have to be taken to deal with the difficult situation in which the hop grower, in consequence of the action of the Government, finds himself. But, as I am pointing out, this is inconsistent with the general policy of decontrol.

There is another matter. My hon and learned Friend suggests that we should decontrol fertilisers. I do not think that that would be supported by the general opinion of agriculturists throughout the country. At the present moment, the export of things like costly sulphate of ammonia, basic slag, and super-phosphates, is prohibited. Unless that prohibition goes on there would be a large export of these fertilisers, and the result would be to put up the price enormously. If that happened my hon. and learned Friend would be the first to come down to the House and ask us at once to restrict the export of fertilisers, as was done in the past. As regards fertilisers, I think that we shall be compelled to continue control for a period in order that the farmers of the country may obtain them at reasonable prices.

In general, I approve of the policy of decontrol, but I may point out what a very long, long way we have travelled in that direction. Milk, cheese, butter, and all milk products have been decontrolled. Pigs—I believe that my hon. and learned Friend's control undoubtedly has led to a reduction in the number of pigs—are to be decontrolled from the 31st of March this year. Home-grown meat is to be decontrolled from the 4th of July. The English Ministry of Agriculture were in favour of decontrol, and it was supported by the Farmers' Union in this country, the Royal Agricultural Society, and other bodies. Unfortunately, our Scottish and Irish friends took a different view, and it was impossible to decontrol in England and Wales, and retain control in Scotland and Ireland. The whole control is coming off on July 4, and there again we have adopted the policy adumbrated by my hon. Friends. Similarly, oats and barley have been decontrolled for some time. An hon. Member asks: With what result? Undoubtedly, with an admitted rise in price; but, if you are going to get a permanent reduction in price, you will have to proceed by the method of decontrol.

Mr. HAYDAY

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what was the price when it was decontrolled and what has been the price since the control has been removed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I cannot carry all these figures in my head, but if my hon. Friend will put down a question, I shall be very glad to answer it. We have travelled a very long way in the direction desired, and the gravamen of the whole charge against us to-night appears to be that we have not at the moment decontrolled wheat. We are told that we have not stimulated the growth of wheat, because we are keeping the control on when other things are being decontrolled. I agree up to a point. No doubt it is true that so long as you have partial control you must have anomalies, and you must favour one crop at the expense of another. That, no doubt, is an argument in favour of general decontrol, but let us look at the position. My hon. Friend charged us with obtaining our crop under false pretences. I cannot see how he can make out a case in that line. What are the facts? Lord Ernle, who was at that time President of the Board of Agriculture, promised that 76s. should be the price for the 1919 crop.

Mr. CAUTLEY

The minimum price.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

No; I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. If he will look, he will find that on November 17th, 1918, I think, the question was asked whether the price paid in 1918 was to be the price in 1919, and the answer was that it was to be "the price," neither minimum nor maximum.

Mr. CAUTLEY

I will read the exact words. The right hon. Member (Mr. G. Lambert) asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state whether the prices paid for controlled cereals harvested in 1919 will be not less than those now current, and the answer was:

"Mr. Prothero

Yes, Sir; the answer is in the affirmative.—[OFFICIAL REPORT; February 14, 1919, Column 516, Vol. 112.]

On the telegrams passed between the English Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Board of Agriculture. The English Board wired to the Scottish Board: Prices to be fixed for next year's con-trolled cereals will not be less than those now-current; in other words a minimum is guaranteed. The Scottish Board sent a telegram asking: Does statement mean that maximum prices for controlled cereals now current will be guaranteed minimum prices for next year's crops? and the English Board replied: Your interpretation of statement as to cereal prices for next year is correct. They were minimum prices.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Yes, but nothing whatever was said about maximum prices.

Mr. CAUTLEY

What does minimum mean?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

I heard it laid down again and again in this House that the prices paid in 1918 were to be the prices in 1919, and the promise has been carried out to the letter. Now I come to 1920. Where is there any breach of promise there? Can any Member say that we ever made any definite promise with regard to 1920? We promised to bring in a Bill in the present Session incorporating the guaranteed minimum prices which applied in the Corn Production Act. We are prepared to bring in that Bill. I hope to bring it in before Easter. That is the sole promise that was made. To say that the 1920 crop was obtained by false pretences is to make a statement that cannot possibly be substantiated.

Mr. TOWNLEY

Did you not promise that we should have a remunerative price for 1920, not less than for 1919?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We did not promise that. We made no promise as to the actual amount, but we did say that, in proposing an Amendment of the Corn Production Act, we would put in a guaranteed minimum price, based on the cost of production to ensure the farmer against loss, and that is precisely what we intend to do. Now I come to 1921. We have stated that, as regards the price for the 1921 crop, we hoped that by that time the policy which my hon. and learned Friend has brought forward will be accom- plished, that is to say, wheat will have been de-controlled by the autumn of 1921.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Why not for 1920?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

If that is not so, we have promised that the farmer for his 1921 crop shall get the world price, with a top limit, a maximum limit of 100s. As regards 1920, my right hon. and gallant Friend asks, why do we not make that promise? It is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] How on earth shall we ever be able to tell what was grown in 1920 and what was grown in 1921? What is to stop growers holding wheat until the 1920 crop is past? [HON. MEMBERS: "The inspectors!"]

Mr. SPEAKER

We can really have only one speech at a time.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

The 1920 crop will be indirectly quite favourably affected. The prospect of a free market at world prices in 1921 will naturally tempt farmers to keep their 1920 wheat in the stack for a longer period than usual. Millers, therefore, will find it necessary to pay more than the present price of 76s. if they wish to obtain their usual supplies in time. It is only fair that they should do this, in view of the greatly increased cost of production. We hope to de-control before the harvest of 1921. If we do not find it possible to do that we shall give to the farmer the world price up to a maximum of 100s. for the 1921 crop, and the 1920 crop will be beneficially affected in the way I have indicated, for undoubtedly millers will have to pay more than otherwise they would pay.

Mr. E. WOOD

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he reconciles that with his announcement of a free market up to 100s. expressly confined to wheat harvested in 1921?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

We say that the farmer for his 1921 crop shall get the world price with a maximum limit of 100s. As regards 1920, they will get the advantage in the manner I have indicated.

Major HOWARD

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if the millers will be allowed to give more than 76s. 6d, for the 1920 crop?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Yes, I am informed they will. Let me put this to my hon. Friends. We have generally decontrolled agricultural produce. We have retained merely this partial control in the case of wheat. I ask those hon. Members who represent the agricultural interest, do they really contend that at a time like this the farmer should ask for complete decontrol, and should ask to get the full price that has been paid for wheat landed in this country? The position is that wheat is brought to this country, and is bought at a high price, which includes the cost, freight, and insurance—c.i.f. it is called. A great part of that price is due to the swollen exchanges, and is due also to the cost of freight. While it is only fair that farmers should get a fair price, and a price that would pay for the cost of production, I am sure it is not to the interest of my hon. Friends that they should encourage farmers to be profiteers, and to obtain the whole amount they can, which is due to swollen exchanges and costly freights.

Captain FITZROY

Both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission recommended a free market, uncontrolled.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

Yes, but may I put another point to the hon. and gallant Member? You ask for a free market, uncontrolled; you ask for an absolute free market as regards the maximum price, but you also ask for a minimum price.

Mr. PRETYMAN

No; we do not want that.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN

That is quite a new position that has been taken up. We have been asked, over and over again, to guarantee prices. I have heard Debates brought on by my hon. Friends, and especially by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley), in which they have demanded higher guaranteed prices under the Corn Production Act. Personally, I think we ought to have a higher guaranteed price. I think we ought to have such a guaranteed price as would enable farmers to sow good wheat with the full confidence that they will not make a loss. We propose to do that, but at a time when the agricultural interest is asking for a guaranteed minimum price they cannot refuse to have a maximum price in the interests of the consumer. Therefore, I confess that I cannot accept this Motion in the wording which is put down. I have said that our policy generally is decontrol. I have pointed out the very long way that we have travelled in the direction of decontrol, and that we are going still further. But, while I want, in every way, to assist the agricultural interest, while I wish to maintain and increase the amount of land in this country under the plough, while I do not want agriculture to drift back into the condition it was in before the War, while I want it to employ as much labour at good wages and reasonable hours as possible, I say that at a moment of transition such as we are in to-day, after this great War, in the interests of the consumer there must be some control over what is the staff of life, our principal agricultural product in this country. I hope it is only temporary; I believe it is only temporary; I hope that farmers will continue to grow wheat; and I think the announcement we have made should stimulate them to do so. But I am bound to say that the Government are compelled, for the time being, to retain this very moderate amount of control. I can only hope that my hon. and learned Friend, realising the very long way that we have travelled on the lines he has, desired, will not persist in this Motion. If he does, much as I dislike voting against those who I know have the interests of agriculture at heart, I shall be bound to resist the Motion.

Mr. ACLAND

I think I, in common with every other Member, except the Parliamentary Secretary, cannot make head or tail of how that figure of 100s. for 1920 is going to affect what wheat is going to be put into the ground in the coming few weeks. Spring wheat does not very much matter, but it would have been a much better thing, and farmers would have felt more confidence in the general good sense, if no mention whatever had been made in that announcement of any idea that it was going to have any effect on the wheat grown this year. One general remark. Listening to this-Debate, many of us must have felt, in these matters about agricultural prices, guarantees, and so on, how rapidly the wheel has been turning round almost a full circle. Here we have persons to-day, who are so admirably fitted to speak for the agricultural industry, practically say- ing to the Government "Keep off Our industry. That is what we want. We want no sort of control or interference from you. We do not want maximum prices and we are not asking for minimum prices." On the other hand, the Government says, "We cannot do that. We insist on continuing the fixed price, sometimes a maximum and sometimes there may be a guaranteed minimum price, but, at any rate, a fixing of the price or a guarantee of prices in the agricultural industry is a thing which for many years to come the State may find it necessary to do." If we cast our minds back, how different things were. These farmers, or some of them, had really one idea in their minds about national policy so far as agriculture was concerned. It was all a cry that the Government should guarantee a minimum price or put duties on imported corn, or something of that kind. All Governments were just the same, they would not hear of it, and there was no idea that any action of that sort could be taken. We have changed very much.

I feel that this Debate has been carried on very largely in a false atmosphere and under the influence of the bread subsidy. I do not believe that the persons who have spoken so eloquently on behalf of the agricultural industry could really have argued in the same way if they had thought that there would be an entire cessation of the bread subsidy, and if immediately the price that the farmer got for his wheat had been reflected, and was to be reflected from now onwards, in the price that the consumer was to pay for his loaf. If we had in our minds that 70s. per quarter for wheat meant perhaps a ninepenny loaf, and 100s. meant a shilling loaf, and 135s. meant a fifteen-penny loaf, or whatever it may be, I am not sure that we should so boldly ask for an absolutely free market, so that the farmer should get the maximum world price, whatever it might be. It is only because we know that if the farmer got that it would not be at the expense of the consumer, because it is inconceivable that the farmer should get 100s. or 120s. for next harvest if the burden had to go on the consumer. We are arguing in a false atmosphere. We only dare argue that the farmer should get the open world price, because we know that as long as the bread subsidy is kept on the burden of paying the farmer that price will come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer through the bread subsidy, and not be reflected on the consumer in the price that he will pay for his loaf. I am willing that the local bread subsidy should come off. I do not think these subsidies for special purposes are right, and I think they ought very soon to come off, and hon. Members like the representatives of the agricultural industry opposite should be the first to say, "Well now, if that is so, we cannot let the charge go forth against the British farmer that, owing to the bad exchanges and the necessity of importing from abroad at high prices, he is having to pay a tremendous price for his loaf, and he will be willing to take lower prices than the open market world price. We will be willing that wheat shall be controlled as long as a reasonable price is paid to the farmer for his produce. If that is so, and we are only daring to ask for a free market because the burden will fall on the general taxpayer, is not what the Minister has just said, only reasonable? Is it not going to be necessary in the interests of the taxpayer and the general community, for some years at any rate not, while there is this dislocation in the matter of exchange, to allow either at the expense of the taxpayer or by adding to the price of the loaf, the farmer to get the full advantage of that dislocation of the exchange and the high price of world wheat? I do not think it ought to go out as a result of this Debate that the agricultural industry has asked for the open world price for their wheat, which will be reflected very likely in a 1s. 2d. loaf or a 1s. 3d. loaf to the consumer. If they are not willing that it should be reflected on the consumer, I do not think it is quite honest that they should make the demand at the expense of the taxpayer in the bread subsidy.

Mr. CAUTLEY

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. PRETYMAN

I cannot allow the statement of my right hon. Friend who represents the Ministry of Agriculture to pass as to the wheat harvest in 1920–21, without calling attention to the position in which the Government have placed us. They have practically stated that farmers are invited to hold their 1920 crop until 1921 in order to obtain 100 shillings in-stead of 76 shillings. Really, I am quite sure that my hon. and gallant Friend and the Government desire to treat the agriculturist and the country fairly. But the position is an absolutely impossible one. It is, in fact, ludicrous. It simply means that the only people who can afford to hold the 1920 wheat and get the 1921 price for it are the richer farmers. All the poorer farmers will have to thresh their wheat in order to meet their outgoings and to pay their wages and so forth, and will have to sell their wheat at a lower price. The position in which he has put himself does definitely commit the Government to give the same price for the 1920 crop that they have promised for the 1921 crop. They have already said that the 1920 crop can get it if it is withheld from the market. Surely that is a condition which is bad for the country, and I suggest to the Government that, having made that concession, they should carry it further and give the same price for both years.

Mr. CAUTLEY

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. TYSON WILSON

In regard to the remarks of the last speaker—

Viscount WOLMER

rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. T. WILSON

It is suggested that if the control on wheat is removed it will encourage farmers to grow more wheat, and that means that by increasing the growing of wheat at a high price—

Major WHELER

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but MR. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.—Resolved, that this House do now adjourn."—[Sir R. Sanders.]

Adjourned accordingly at One minute after Eleven o'clock.